4 ms·

This is a restatement of what we've puzzled over for some time now: that those who consume modest amounts of alcohol have a reduced risk of mortality. It's an

This is a restatement of what we've puzzled over for some time now: that those who consume modest amounts of alcohol have a reduced risk of mortality. It's an epidemiologic association, so this isn't something you can exactly hang your hat on and encourage people to do. But it has been observed that cardiovascular risk is lowest for women who have just under 1 drink per day, and men who have 2 or fewer per day. This reinforces the older literature, but doesn't really help illuminate the causal chain, if any. (Edit - as sp332 points out below, this does present new data about an association between heavy drinking and reduced mortality in this cohort.)

sp332 16y ago
What's new is that, in this study, heavy drinkers outlived abstainers. Very unexpected, even though I knew that moderate drinkers had some health benefits.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Yes, good point. I agree that this part is a new finding; thank you.
secretasiandan 16y ago
I don't think your summary is quite correct "abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers." "Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk." Side question : For your statement about men, is that just under 2 a day or less than 2 a day?
- carbocation 16y ago
  2 a day or fewer (inclusive of 2 a day). Also, I think what you said and what I said are in agreement. This is why I called the article a "restatement," because it presents similar outcomes from a different perspective (abstainers have high mortality as opposed to moderate drinkers have low mortality - different ways to represent similar facts). But perhaps you still see a difference? (Edit - see the comment from sp332 below where he/she explains the difference - the news about the heavy drinkers is novel.)

sp332 16y ago

What's new is that, in this study, heavy drinkers outlived abstainers. Very unexpected, even though I knew that moderate drinkers had some health benefits.

carbocation 16y ago
Yes, good point. I agree that this part is a new finding; thank you.

secretasiandan 16y ago

I don't think your summary is quite correct "abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers." "Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk." Side question : For your statement about men, is that just under 2 a day or less than 2 a day?

carbocation 16y ago
2 a day or fewer (inclusive of 2 a day). Also, I think what you said and what I said are in agreement. This is why I called the article a "restatement," because it presents similar outcomes from a different perspective (abstainers have high mortality as opposed to moderate drinkers have low mortality - different ways to represent similar facts). But perhaps you still see a difference? (Edit - see the comment from sp332 below where he/she explains the difference - the news about the heavy drinkers is novel.)